Captkerosene
Member
They reduced their scrap bill by 40% which reduced their COGS by 25%. So, if their old scrap bill was 60% of COGS and they reduced it by 40% then their new scrap bill is 35% of COGS. (.4 x .6 = .24.) (.6 - .24 = .36)4680 represents a big risk to TSLA right now. They've been working on it for years and haven't got it figured out. At some point, you need to consider the possibility that it won't (and will never) work. If that happens, CT and Semi get pushed back a year or two ... not the end of the world but it'll hurt and we become reliant on Chinese battery makers for the foreseeable future.
I don't think the current 35% scrap bill is anywhere near an acceptable production number. Maybe for a chip maker, but shouldn't a battery maker be well South of 10%? Betting the CT and Semi production ramps on 4680 when they haven't solved manufacturing is risky.
Also, Drew presented the information in a way that sounded good but (IMO) hid the severity of the problem. Not cool.
I'd love to be wrong on this. I'm not an engineer or mathematician. I just want to understand the risks going forward.
Last edited: